Why are they still wearing badges and carrying guns?

 

A gentleman (?) named Jamarcus Oneal Spates was arrested by a gaggle of Houston police officers on Monday.  It's not clear why so many of the officers were involved, or why they took such extreme precautions, but be that as it may . . .

On-duty uniformed officers arrived and attempted to stop the vehicle with Spates inside, the release states. HPD alleges Spates refused several commands to exit the vehicle.

The responding officers said they shot at Spates after they attempted to move toward the vehicle and saw him open the driver's door of the vehicle and extend his arm "in a shooting position," according to HPD's account. A bullet "grazed" Spates, the release said.

There's more at the link.

A bullet "grazed" Spates.  One bullet.  ONE SINGLE BULLET.

How many rounds were fired by all those officers to obtain just one slight, non-disabling injury to the suspect?  See (and hear) for yourself.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?????

All those bullets flying around, and the suspect was grazed by just one of them.  Where, pray tell, did the rest of the bullets go?  How many nearby buildings, vehicles, trees, etc. were struck as well?  Oh - and what about innocent bystanders?

That's just about the most sickeningly incompetent firearms handling I've ever seen from uniformed cops.  I've no idea how many rounds were fired in all, but I won't be surprised to hear it was a hundred or more . . . AND ONLY ONE STRUCK ITS TARGET, AND EVEN THEN, ONLY JUST!!!

What's the point of issuing firearms to police at all, if that's the way they're going to handle them in a crisis situation?

No handgun bullet is a very good fight-stopper compared to a rifle or shotgun.  We know this.  It's been common knowledge for years.  However, even a handgun will stop a fight quickly enough if a bullet hits the target's central nervous system - i.e. the brain or the spine.  A penetration of the heart and/or circulatory system will take a bit longer - up to 30-60 seconds for the suspect to "bleed out".  However, if all the bullet does is "graze" the suspect's arm, it's not going to do one single damned thing to stop him.  It may make him lose his temper, but that's about all.

(As the late, great Jeff Cooper used to say about the [infamously puny] .25 ACP round:  "Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody, and he finds out about it, he may be very angry with you."  Considering the lack of success of those police officers, armed with [comparatively much more powerful] 9mm handguns, shotguns and at least one AR-15 rifle, they may as well have been carrying .25 ACP pistols instead!)

I'd take away the badges of the whole lot of them, and send them all for remedial firearms training.  I'd refuse to re-issue their badges unless and until they passed a truly practical, useful firearms test, such as the qualification for a basic handgun certificate from Gunsite or Thunder Ranch or equivalent shooting schools.  Can't do that?  Then you can't carry a gun to defend the public, because you're more of a danger to them than you are to the criminal!

Sheesh . . .

Peter

A misuse of AI that I hadn't foreseen

 

We know artificial intelligence (AI) can be a very useful tool for good.  Sadly, it can be used for evil as well.

Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases".

The Derbyshire Police officer has been removed from front-line duties, pending the outcome of the investigation, the force said.

The officer is alleged to have perverted the course of justice, but no arrests have been made, police added.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said they were working with police, adding: "We are engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases."

There's more at the link.

I hadn't given this enough consideration, but thinking about it, it's potentially a very serious problem.  Perverting the course of justice is bad enough, but think about how a group with a particular ideology can fabricate "evidence" to persuade their government to act in a certain way towards another country?  The neocon outrage at President Trump's announcement of a deal with Iran is a good example.  What if the outspoken pro-war ideologues could concoct their own evidence to "show" that the deal is a lousy one, and should be abandoned?  What if they could "create" evidence to persuade Iran to start hostilities again, because it was convinced America was about to attack it again?

This adds a very worrying dimension to AI.  It will probably be almost impossible for a non-specialist to figure out whether or not the evidence presented is authentic or fabricated.  Indeed, it may contain just enough truth to be persuasive, and add enough falsehood to lead to a wrong conclusion.  How would one prove it false when it contains at least some truth?

This adds new complexity to the issue of censorship - of news, of social media, of whatever.  First Street Journal gives us examples.

It was just over four years ago that we wrote about The New York Times publishing an article by a member of their own Editorial Board, Greg Bensinger, telling readers of that august supporter of Freedom of the Press that it was bad, bad, bad that Elon Musk was trying to buy Twitter, and that his promise to make the social media service an “inclusive arena for free speech” and that “Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place.”

. . .

We pointed out that The New York Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy[2] to claim that restrictions on speech actually promoted freedom of speech. They also published articles claiming that Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence ... And today? There were riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland, following the attempted beheading of a Scotsman by a Sudanese asylum seeker, and the Usual Suspects complained not about the attack, but about Twitter not censoring people writing about it! There’s more of that here and here and here.

The United Kingdom’s Secretary for Northern Island Hilary Benn said, following the knife attack in Belfast:

Social media companies have a very heavy responsibility. It’s why we’re going to bring forward new powers next week to make it clear that social media companies need to take down illegal content, particularly when we are facing circumstances such as the ones we’ve seen in Northern Ireland over the last two days.

It’s simple: our good friends on the left are afraid, deathly afraid, that if the people in general have the information Our Betters would rather not see disseminated, people might, horrors! draw conclusions from that information of which the left would disapprove!

Again, more at the link.

Imagine that the sources quoted by First Street Journal had been "massaged" by AI to give a rather different emphasis to the news than the reality?  For that matter, what if the journal itself used AI to give a particular propaganda twist to its presentation of the news?  Merely by selecting words and phrases that "shaded" the presentation in one direction or another, its impression on readers could be significantly altered;  and AI systems, with their vast resources of language, facts, figures and news, would be in an ideal position to shape and form that impression.

Hmmmm . . .

Peter

Points to ponder about small handguns

 

With the seeming increase of random criminal violence in society, to say nothing of politically inspired unrest, I've been dealing with more than a few queries about the pro's and con's of carrying small handguns.  It's a complicated issue, and I thought I'd address some of the key points in this article.

First, as a general rule small handguns are harder to shoot well than larger handguns.  There are several reasons:

• The smaller grip is less easy to grasp firmly, draw smoothly, and get a strong firing grip, particularly for shooters with larger hands.
• Smaller handguns are typically carried in what's called "deep concealment", such as in a pocket or handbag.  That's logical, of course, since larger handguns would be hard to conceal in such places.  However, it's usually harder to get to such guns in a hurry, and then withdraw them and bring them to a ready position.  It's "fiddly".  To draw a larger handgun from a more accessible holster and bring it into a ready position is usually rather easier.  I strongly recommend using a holster even for pocket or handbag carry, to keep the firearm in a predictable position, ready to draw, and to prevent anything getting into the trigger guard and risking an accidental discharge.  (More on this later.)
• Smaller, lighter handguns transmit more recoil energy to the shooter than larger, heavier weapons.  As an example, try firing a .38 Special cartridge through a medium-size K-frame or L-frame Smith & Wesson revolver (or equivalent), then firing the same cartridge through a smaller J-frame snubnose revolver.  Do the same with a 9mm cartridge from a Glock 17 (full-size) or 19 (compact) pistol (or equivalent), and then through a Glock 43 sub-compact pistol (or equivalent).  The smaller, lighter firearm will always deliver heavier perceived recoil than the bigger weapon.  In some cases (for example, firing a full-power .357 Magnum cartridge from a Smith & Wesson 340 snubnose revolver, made with ultra-light-weight Scandium) you'll regret doing so after even one shot.  Hel-loooo, carpal tunnel syndrome!
• Because of their abbreviated sights and shorter sight radius (i.e. the distance between front and rear sights), smaller handguns are harder to aim accurately (unless you add better sights, which may render them bulkier and/or less easily concealed).  Furthermore, their light weight makes it more difficult to shoot them accurately, rapidly and repeatedly during a defensive encounter.  It's not impossible, but it's definitely more difficult than with a larger weapon.  If anyone doubts that, try the comparison for yourself at your favorite shooting range.  There's a reason early short-barreled firearms were known as "belly guns" - because that was the sort of range at which they were used.  One didn't need long-range sights to aim at a target across a card table or desk, or literally stick it into someone's belly, and let fly!
• Snubnose revolvers are typically slower to reload than small pistols, and both are more "finicky" than larger handguns, where the firearm and its replacement rounds (in a speedloader or a magazine) are easier to handle.

Another point is that smaller handguns are easier to lose.  That may sound silly, but I've seen it happen to three people I know.  One chose a small handgun to fit in her handbag.  She hung the bag on the back of her chair at a restaurant.  When she finished her conversation with friends and turned to pick it up, it was gone.  Another friend left a small handgun in a jacket pocket when he hung it up at a social gathering;  it was so light he didn't remember it being there.  When he reclaimed his jacket, the gun was gone.  There have also been cases where people have left firearms in a public toilet.  Larger weapons are more likely to be retained on one's person in a holster, and thus are less likely to be lost.

You'll need to practice more often to master (and retain mastery of) a smaller handgun than you will with a larger one.  That's why it's generally a bad idea to start your shooting education using a smaller weapon and/or a heavier-recoiling cartridge.  I've seen many novice shooters get frustrated and disillusioned because they can't master it, and give up.  If only they'd started with a larger, easier-to-handle firearm, they could have got the basics down pat and been given a thorough grasp of the fundamentals before trying a more difficult firearm.  That's what I usually do when teaching other shooters.

That leads to my first recommendation for a small (indeed, for any) handgun.  Make sure the gun fits your hand as well as possible before you buy it.  Handle different models, go to gun ranges that rent out firearms and use as many different models as possible, ask your friends to let you try their guns.  In particular, ladies, do not allow some idiotic male (yes, they're out there, as I'm sure you know all too well) to try to insist that this, or that, or the other firearm is right for you.  Make sure it feels comfortable in your hands, and that the sights come readily to your eye when you lift it to aim at a target.  Shoot several rounds through it to see how the recoil feels.  (Revolvers are easier to fit to your hand than pistols, because there are different grips available for them, and you can choose those that best suit you.  Revolvers also have Crimson Trace Lasergrips and similar products available for many models, which are an absolutely outstanding accessory for emergency, close-range shooting when you may not have space or time to line up the sights conventionally.  More about that later.)

As well as the gun fitting your hand well, see how the recoil feels to you.  If the grip is too small or too large for you to grasp it comfortably, the gun will move in your hand under recoil, forcing you to readjust your grip before the next shot.  This will slow you down and make it more difficult to hit your target, because you have to concentrate on something else.  The selection procedure outlined in the previous paragraph will apply also to choosing a caliber you can handle.  A heavy-recoiling round is probably not optimum in a small handgun unless you're a trained, experienced shooter and know what you're doing.  Choosing a less powerful, lower-recoiling cartridge (for example, a .38 Special instead of a .357 Magnum) is recommended for novice shooters, who can also choose a much lighter caliber if they wish (e.g. .22LR instead of .38).  Lighter calibers are less likely to stop a hopped-up attacker, but if they're what you can handle, you can learn to use them well enough to compensate for that handicap.  I promise you, a few .22's in and around the eyes will deter even the most aggressive assailant!

It's also useful to know that certain ammunition manufacturers make both heavier-recoil and lower-recoil rounds in a given cartridge or caliber.  A few examples:

• Hornady makes its 9mm 115gr. FTX Critical Defense round for standard use, but for those who can't tolerate heavy recoil, it also offers its 9mm 100gr. FTX Critical Defense Lite load.  The latter may not be as effective as the former, but it's still a viable option - and it has rather less "kick" than the former round.
• Black Hills Ammunition offers the Honeybadger "scalloped" bullet in two 9mm loads;  a 100gr projectile, faster and more energetic, and a 125gr. bullet, slower and less energetic (and offering lower recoil).  I prefer the latter load in small 9mm pistols, as it remains very effective despite being more controllable than its faster brother.
• Federal offers its 9mm HST defensive load in a 124gr. +P (i.e. high-pressure) round, and a 147gr. standard-pressure cartridge.  Again, the latter load recoils less energetically than the former.  Both are widely used by law enforcement agencies, which speaks highly of the HST range.

There are other manufacturers offering similar choices.  Do your own research, and choose the round that best fits your level of knowledge and experience.  I've been shooting for many decades, and I feel no shame in admitting that as I grow older and slower, I prefer a lower-recoil round in a smaller, lighter weapon.  Arthritis and heavy recoil are not very compatible!

One's choice of weapon should be directed by the threats one is likely to face.  If a potential attacker is likely to be alone (e.g. a nutcase on public transport), or one or two men hanging around outside a shop or bank or cinema, a smaller handgun may well be enough to deal with the problem.  If you're more likely to face an angry riot, with violence being offered indiscriminately by groups of feral protesters to everyone they meet, no handgun is likely to be sufficient, no matter how large it may be or how many rounds it may hold!

A small handgun is designed to be carried to deal with occasional threats that are not very likely to occur.  A more dangerous threat requires a tool more suited to deal with it - which is why police officers usually carry full-size service pistols holding anywhere from fifteen to twenty rounds, sometimes even more.  We, as civilians, can do the same, but we'd better know how to conceal them (to prevent others hitting us over the head to steal them) and use them (to protect ourselves and our loved ones).  If we look like a threat to others, they're likely to respond as if we are a threat.  Therefore, discreet carry and low-key behavior are more likely to protect us than a macho, manly swagger while displaying our supersized Felon-Stopper Magnum-Blaster Mark XVIII handgun!

If I leave the house, I'm armed as a matter of course.  I'll usually be carrying a small handgun that I can shoot well enough at short range to defend myself and/or my wife.  It won't be suitable for long-range use or to handle more than one or two opponents, because the odds of my facing such a threat are minuscule.  If I lived in a big city (particularly a so-called "blue" city where left-wing sympathies predominate, making the authorities "soft" on crime), that would not apply.  I'd be carrying something larger and more powerful, and have spare ammo available for rapid reloads as well.  If mob violence is a possibility, I'll always try to not be anywhere near there;  but if I absolutely have to be there, I'll be carrying more than a handgun.  When I travel, I take into account the environments through/in which I'm likely to pass and/or stay, and equip myself accordingly.  In other words, I arm myself to meet the threat(s) I'm most likely to encounter in a given place at a given time.

Another factor to consider is aiming a handgun under the pressure of an attack, or in a more widespread, confused situation such as a riot.  In a high-stress situation, with one's adrenaline pumping, it's very hard to aim accurately at a moving target while other people are obscuring the range and perhaps also threatening you.  For that reason, I highly recommend a laser sight such as a Crimson Trace Lasergrip for most revolvers.  Sight it in to cover the most likely ranges at which you may need it (I suggest 10 yards for a small gun), then train with it until you can bring up the weapon, put the dot on target, and fire an accurate round as fast as possible.  That'll generally be faster than trying to line up front and rear sights on a moving target.  Similar laser sights are available for some small pistols as well.  Shop around and see what you can find.

I usually don't recommend a red dot sight for a small handgun if deep concealment is going to be necessary.  They are very useful indeed, to be sure, but they stick up above the weapon and make it harder to draw it in a hurry from a pocket or inside a handbag.  You'll be surprised at how easily the sight can catch against clothing or nearby objects, slowing your draw quite drastically.  Its sight advantage may be less worthwhile than its other disadvantages;  you'll have to make that call for yourself.  My preference is usually to carry a handgun with a red dot sight in a holster on my belt, to minimize that problem.

While on the subject of deep concealment, I strongly recommend the use of either a double-action handgun (such as a snubnose revolver) that has a relatively heavy, long trigger pull, or a firearm with a safety catch that must be released in order to pull the trigger.  Both cases are to prevent something in a pocket or a handbag snagging on the trigger and accidentally discharging the gun.  This isn't an idle fear, either:  I can recall reading of several incidents where it's happened.  That's also a very good reason to use a pocket or handbag holster that covers the trigger guard, and prevents anything getting inside before the firearm is drawn.  Safety is a critical aspect of firearms handling that's too often honored more in the breach than in the observance.  Don't become an accidental discharge statistic!

On most days, a small, easily concealed handgun is all I need.  However, I take care to make sure I keep up my practice with it, so that if I should have to use it, I can be reasonably sure of solving my problem.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,128

 

Today's award goes to police and tax authorities in South Korea for an epic blunder.

Soon after South Korean police posted a press release boasting about seizing $5.6 million worth of cryptocurrency from 124 wealthy tax evaders, cops realized that they had mistakenly posted images that made it possible for a thief to quickly steal most of the seized assets.

. . .

Clearly legible in the photo, the note contained a complete mnemonic recovery phrase that anyone can use as a master key to move assets off the cold wallet to a new wallet without any additional PIN or permissions required.

. . .

It’s possible that whoever took the cryptocurrency just seized on an opportunity after seeing the cops’ failure to redact the images while scrolling through the National Tax Service’s press releases at dawn. It’s also possible that bad actors are closely monitoring South Korean police cryptocurrency announcements, following what The Block reported was “a series of crypto custody lapses.”

There's more at the link.

OK, I have to admit, that's a special kind of stupid.  Boasting about seizing over $5M from a felon - then posting clues enough to allow another criminal to steal what the cops had just recovered?  Why do I never have the luck to come across photographs like that when I need them?

Peter

Rescuing a kidnapped girl from her predator captors

 

The BBC has the fascinating story of how a girl who'd been missing for six years was finally traced and rescued.  It's too long to cite everything here, but this excerpt gives you some idea of the care and attention to detail involved.

Squire and his team could see, from the type of light sockets and electrical outlets visible in the images, that Lucy was in North America. But that was about it.

They contacted Facebook, which at the time dominated the social media landscape, asking for help scouring uploaded family photos - to see if Lucy was in any of them. But Facebook, despite having facial recognition technology, said it "did not have the tools" to help.

So Squire and his colleagues analysed everything they could see in Lucy's room: the bedspread, her outfits, her stuffed toys. Looking for any element which might help.

And then they had a minor breakthrough. The team discovered that a sofa seen in some of the images was only sold regionally, not nationally, and therefore had a more limited customer base.

But that still amounted to about 40,000 people.

"At that point in the investigation, we're [still] looking at 29 states here in the US. I mean, you're talking about tens of thousands of addresses, and that's a very, very daunting task," says Squire.

The team looked for more clues. And that is when they realised something as mundane as the exposed brick wall in Lucy's bedroom could give them a lead.

"So, I started just Googling bricks and it wasn't too many searches [before] I found the Brick Industry Association," says Squire.

"And the woman on the phone was awesome. She was like, 'how can the brick industry help?'"

She offered to share the photo with brick experts all over the country. The response was almost immediate, he says.

One of the people who got in touch was John Harp, who had been working in brick sales since 1981.

"I noticed that the brick was a very pink-cast brick, and it had a little bit of a charcoal overlay on it. It was a modular eight-inch brick and it was square-edged," he says. "When I saw that, I knew exactly what the brick was," he adds.

It was, he told Squire, a "Flaming Alamo".

"[Our company] made that brick from the late 60s through about the middle part of the 80s, and I had sold millions of bricks from that plant."

Initially Squire was ecstatic, expecting they could access a digitised customer list. But Harp broke the news that the sales records were just a "pile of notes" that went back decades.

He did however reveal a key detail about bricks, Squire says.

"He goes: 'Bricks are heavy.' And he said: 'So heavy bricks don't go very far.'"

This changed everything. The team returned to the sofa customer list and narrowed that down to just those clients who lived within a 100-mile radius of Harp's brick factory in the US south-west.

There's much more at the link.  It's well worth reading in full, to give you some idea of the difficulties involved in tracing missing children.

The horrifying part of the story, to me at any rate, is that when police finally raided the house and rescued the girl, they learned she'd been raped by a sexual predator for six years.  Six years - and she was 12 years old when rescued.  That means she'd been missing and abused for half her life.  She was a child, with no resources to call on, no parent to lean on, nobody to help at all.  How she survived such abuse is something I can't comprehend.  Now in her 20's, she has a few things to say in the article about her experiences.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of missing children in our country.  Many of them were sent here by human traffickers, sold on to predators and abusers across the country.  It's heartbreaking to think that Lucy is only one such person.  If only we were all more alert to the warning signs, we might be able to help so many more . . .

Peter

That's a very good point

 

In an interview a few days ago, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in Minnesota raised what I think is a very worthwhile question.

On Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Minnesota Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell discussed cooperation between local sheriffs and immigration officials and said that “having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue. But, to date, we have not seen a willingness on the part of DHS to pursue those.”

. . .

"... sheriffs are in a very difficult position, because they face legal liability if they hold people beyond their appointed time. And having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue."

There's more at the link.

That may be a smokescreen, of course, glossing over the real issue that Minnesota's policy is not to cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration issues, including arrests.  However, the question of administrative versus judicial orders or detainers is, I submit, more important than it may seem at first glance.

In criminal law, a warrant is typically required to arrest someone or search their property. These types of warrants must be issued by a judge; thus, they are also known as “judicial warrants.”

A judicial warrant is a document issued by a judge (or magistrate judge) that authorizes law enforcement officers to perform certain actions (like conducting a search, making an arrest, or seizing property). Judicial warrants are typically issued based on probable cause, which means there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the action authorized by the warrant will yield evidence related to that crime. These warrants serve as a safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights.

. . .

An administrative warrant doesn’t need to involve a judge or court at all (though an administrative law judge may review some). Instead, it’s issued by an administrative agency or official, as the name implies.

. . .

Administrative warrants are used for regulatory or administrative purposes, not criminal prosecution. Another difference is that administrative warrants generally have a lower standard than "probable cause,” which is required for judicial warrants. Finally, administrative warrants are based on statutory authority rather than Fourth Amendment requirements (like judicial warrants).

Judicial warrants typically deal with criminal law, whereas administrative warrants typically deal with civil law. That’s part of why the standard for a judicial warrant is higher: life and liberty are on the line. That’s also why judicial warrants will be in the form of either arrest warrants (to apprehend a suspect), search warrants (to search a specific location for evidence of a crime), or seizure warrants (to seize specific property or evidence related to a crime). Judicial warrants are considered more protective of individual rights, as they require a neutral judge's independent review of the evidence and a finding of probable cause.

Again, more at the link.

I can see both sides of this issue.  ICE and other federal agencies often try to arrest hundreds, even thousands of people in a given area (a city, a suburb, at an employer's premises, etc.).  To get individual judicial warrants against every potential suspect in that area might be so great a burden on their administration that it's effectively impossible.  However, that also runs a greater risk that some, at least, of those they arrest might have their civil rights ignored in the process.  We've already seen reports of that;  for example, US citizens arrested and detained for extended periods (sometimes days or even weeks) until they could prove they were legally resident in this country.  ICE and its defenders will protest that they could have produced such proof at any time, but if they were denied access to telephones and other means of communication (a routine occurrence, or so I understand), how were they to ask a family member or other person to deliver such proof?  If they lived alone, how could they get such proof from their place(s) of residence when they were detained, preventing them from traveling to their homes?

A judicial warrant demands a higher standard of proof from law enforcement authorities before they can make an arrest.  If a suspect's rights are to be restricted or infringed by arresting him/her, a judge or magistrate must confirm that there is enough evidence to justify that interference.  The warrant can also be challenged in court, as can the process leading to its being issued.  If an officer mistakenly asks for a judicial arrest warrant because he/she had unreliable or insufficient information, that can be held against the officer if it comes out in court.  An administrative warrant lacks all such protection - it was (normally) never reviewed by a judge or magistrate before being issued.  In so many words, it's nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

I'm firmly of the opinion that illegal aliens should be deported, except for genuine, repeat, genuine, verifiable cases where refugee status might be awarded.  However, regardless of one's perspective on immigration, I think the use of only administrative warrants for mass arrests is legally questionable, and might become a tool of actual oppression if the "wrong people" issue such warrants without judicial scrutiny.  I think ICE may have to reconsider this issue.  Certainly, I'll be more comfortable from legal, moral and ethical perspectives if they do.

At the same time, those opposed to enforcing immigration laws will have to accept that it's a federal government issue, not a state or local issue.  If they want to protest it, there are legal avenues for them to do so.  To physically assault federal officers in the performance of their duties is not one of them;  nor is using state and local laws and regulations to obstruct and interfere with their operations.  Administrative warrants are too often used as an excuse to disrupt such legitimate law enforcement activities, without examining the rights and wrongs involved.

Peter

The lighter side of ICE operations

 

Supporters of ICE operations against illegal aliens, and of President Trump's policies towards them, seem to be enjoying themselves.  Click the first or second link in this sentence to go to the social media posts concerned.

As my friend Lawdog would say, Gigglesnort!

Peter

Robotic crooks? AI con artists? Computerized criminals?

 

An article at Futurism suggests that we can expect all of the above, and then some.

In a new report, pan-European police agency Europol’s Innovation Lab has imagined a not-so-distant future in which criminals could hijack autonomous vehicles, drones, and humanoid robots to sow chaos — and how law enforcement will have to step up as a result.

By the year 2035, the report warns that law enforcement departments will need to deal with “crimes by robots, such as drones” that are “used as tools in theft,” not to mention “automated vehicles causing pedestrian injuries” — an eventuality we’ve already seen in numerous cases.

Humanoid robots could also complicate matters “as they could be designed to interact with humans in a more sophisticated way, potentially making it more difficult to distinguish between intentional and accidental behavior,” the report notes.

Worse yet, robots designed to assist in healthcare settings could be hacked into, leaving patients vulnerable to attackers.

Rounding out the cyberpunk dystopia vibes, according to the report, is that all the folks who were put out of a job as a result of automation may be motivated to commit “cybercrime, vandalism, and organized theft, often targeted at robotic infrastructure” just to survive.

Law enforcement needs to evolve rapidly to keep up, Europol says. For instance, a police officer may need to determine whether a driverless car that was involved in an accident did so after receiving deliberate instruction as part of a cyberattack, or whether it was a simple malfunction.

. . .

Advanced weapons have already “spilled over into organised crime and terrorism, impacting law enforcement,” the report reads. “There has also been a reported increase in the use of drones around European infrastructure, and there are examples of drone pilots selling their services online, transforming this criminal process from crime-as-a-service to crime-at-a-distance.”

In short, it’s a troubling vision of the future of crime, facilitated by rapidly evolving technologies.

There's more at the link.  The original Europol report may be found here.

This is hardly surprising, of course.  Criminals have always used every technology ever invented, as soon as it's come along (and often before law enforcement has thought about its criminal misuse, or considered countermeasures).  Today, however, the threat is greater than ever before.  There must be enough well-trained and -experienced drone operators in Ukraine and Russia alone that every criminal organization in Europe could hire a troop of them.  As that knowledge and experience proliferates, particularly in South American drug cartels (who are already using drones as offensive weapons against each other and against law enforcement, and using them to fly drugs and other contraband across the US border), we're sure to see police forces and other agencies setting up their own specialist units to tackle the problem.

I remain equally concerned about the use of drones by "ordinary" criminals to survey streets and neighborhoods, looking for targets of opportunity.  Examples:

• There are a number of gangs stealing cars to order.  If you want a specific make and model of car, you let the gang know, and they'll find one to steal for you.  A number of high-end autos have been exported in response to such interest.  A drone-equipped operator can fly over neighborhoods all across a city to find the vehicle(s) he wants, and choose those in the most vulnerable areas or homes for further attention.
• If a given suburb is popular with wealthier people, gangs can fly drones over it to check on security systems and precautions they use.  If they find a more vulnerable home, they can plot ways to approach the house under cover of garden vegetation, or plan rapid egress routes after they've broken in.  They can also monitor the frequency and routes taken by security patrols.
• Left-wing and progressive groups are doxxing the names and addresses of ICE agents and other law enforcement personnel.  If you happen to live near one, you and your family might find yourselves caught up in (potentially violent) demonstrations against that address and those living there.
• Kidnapping and human trafficking are in the news almost every day.  Using drones, the perpetrators can look for likely victims and observe them for long periods, to establish their patterns of life and determine when they will be most vulnerable to attack.

Those are just a few of the ways in which criminals can benefit from technology, or we can suffer because they have access to it.

Peter

Drones again - this time, south of the border

 

Following our discussion last week of drones and their utility for defense of life and property, I found this article about how Mexican drug cartels are weaponizing drones against each other, and against the security forces.

Last month, three drones rigged with explosives detonated outside a prosecutor’s office in Tijuana, Mexico, besieging six cars parked outside with a blast of nails, BBs and metal fragments. The attack was orchestrated by a cartel, Mexican government officials confirmed, and targeted an anti-kidnapping unit of the Baja state attorney general’s office. It is the latest high-profile example of first-person view drones being used by cartels to replicate military tactics being used in Ukraine.

Defense News previously reported that members of Latin American drug cartels had joined Ukraine’s foreign fighter volunteer units to gain FPV drone training.

Earlier this year, a cartel ambush using an explosive drone in the border state of Chihuahua sent two Mexican military service members and one police officer to the hospital. Three drones were subsequently seized.

Attacks made by explosive-equipped drones surged to over 260 in 2023. In 2024, a drone ambush was reportedly followed by an infantry-style attack in a remote community in Mexico, according to AP.

“Nonstate actors can now acquire capabilities once reserved for nation-states,” writes Stephen Honan for the Atlantic Council on cartels’ increasing use of FPV drones. “Cartels are no longer merely criminal syndicates; they increasingly resemble hybrid entities blending organized crime, paramilitary force, and terrorist tactics.”

There's more at the link.

If the cartels are getting that sophisticated in Mexico, it's surely only a matter of time before they try using drones against the US Border Patrol and/or law enforcement agencies in an effort to get more drugs into this country, or attack rivals in the drug trade.  I'd also expect to see them as a security device to guard marijuana plantations and drug "factories", detecting police raids or rival cartel operations before they strike.

There's also the question of airport security.  Drone operations have shut down airports in Europe on several occasions recently.  Nobody knows (yet) who's behind them, but suspicion centers around Russia, which is at war with Ukraine and is hostile to European nations helping the latter country.  Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, and drones merely add another string to the bow of that sort of warfare.

This makes me even more certain that it will be a good idea to learn how to use a drone, partly for reasons of local security during times of unrest, wildfire or other danger, and partly to understand how to defend against them in the hands of local gangs or drug dealers.  You can bet the gang-bangers have already realized how useful these things can be to plot crimes or keep an eye out for patrolling police, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of them being used for such purposes.

My "el cheapo" drone arrived yesterday, and over the next couple of weeks I'm going to start figuring out how to use it.  If I crash it, it won't hurt my wallet too much, as drones costing less than $50 - some less than $10 - are freely available and affordable.  If the learning process goes well, I can look at upgrading to something more effective when funds are available.  If I understand the little beasts better, I can defend against them - and their operators - better as well.

Food for thought - and action.

Peter

The Ukraine war is increasingly equipping and empowering drug cartels

 

South American drug cartels are deliberately sending some of their best fighting men and women to Ukraine, to learn how to use drones against an enemy, and how to convert ordinary civilian models into killing machines.  Because this is a growing danger within the USA as well, I'll provide an extended quote from the article.

Mexican intelligence officials tipped off their Ukrainian counterparts in July.

They warned Kyiv that cartel members were infiltrating Ukraine’s foreign ­fighter cadres to learn how to fly first-person view (FPV) kamikaze drones, which give pilots a bird’s-eye view of the target as they close in with an explosive payload.

Mexico’s warring drug cartels, who are engaged in their own drone arms race, now appear to be adopting the technology.

Last week, footage emerged for the first time of Sinaloa cartel sicarios, or hitmen, brandishing a new “fibre-optic” FPV drone, a model pioneered in Ukraine that is controlled by cable rather than radio signal to evade jamming devices.

“Ukraine has become a platform for the global dissemination of FPV tactics,” a security official in Kyiv told Intelligence Online, a French security website that first broke news of the investigation into Eagle 7.

“Some come to learn how to kill with a $400 drone, then sell that knowledge to whoever pays the highest price.”

Quite how many cartel hitmen have gone to Ukraine for drone “training” ­remains a mystery. The investigation in the summer is understood to have discovered at least three former members of Colombia’s disbanded Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) guerrilla movement, heavily involved in cocaine trafficking.

It would not be hard for a cartel member to blend in these days in Ukraine, as the International Legion is ­increasingly relying on Latin American recruits.

Most are from Colombia, where large numbers of former security personnel have found themselves jobless in the wake of the landmark 2016 peace deal with the Farc.

. . .

It is thought that several thousand have served in the International Legion over the past three years, with up to 300 killed.

Cartel members are understood to be taking advantage of the fact that Kyiv has limited means to vet overseas recruits properly.

“We’re seeing reports in recent months that both Mexican cartels and Colombian criminal groups are trying to infiltrate the Ukrainian military to learn techniques that they can take back to Latin America,” Alexander Marciniak, a Latin American intelligence analyst for Sibylline, a private intelligence firm, told The Telegraph.

“The cartels can use drones for all sorts of purposes, attacks and surveillance on each other and on the security forces, and for smuggling contraband.”

Mexico has seen a huge surge in the use of attack drones in recent years, from just a handful of incidents in 2020 up to more than 40 per month by 2023. It reflects a growing militarisation of the drug gangs, with cartels hiring professional ex-soldiers, many of them from Colombia, to give them an edge.

. . .

As well as getting access to vast ­arrays of weaponry, foreign volunteers can also learn a range of techniques for building home-made attack drones, many of them circulated on DIY-style instruction videos.

Meanwhile, both Colombia and Mexico face growing US pressure to crack down on cartels, following Donald Trump’s announcement that designated Mexican cartels would now be treated as “narco-terrorist” groups rather than street gangs because of their growing firepower.

Four suspected drug boats have been destroyed by US drone strikes in the Caribbean, and Mr Trump has also hinted he could send US troops into Mexico. Colombia is considering a bill to outlaw its soldiers from enlisting as mercenaries.

Critics, however, say that banning them from legitimate work could simply drive more into the ranks of the cartels.

There's more at the link.

This would also help to explain why the USA is ramping up its operations against drug cartels in several South American countries, including (that we know of) Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela.  If US forces and law enforcement agencies can "get ahead" of such technological advances, they can keep the danger at arms' length, so to speak.  However, if cartels are already carrying out tens of operations every month (again, those are just the ones we know about), it may be too late for such delaying tactics to succeed - and drones may make such operations a lot more dangerous for those tasked with them.

This points to a growing internal security problem inside our borders.  What if the current Antifa/BLM/far-left/progressive demonstrations are suddenly augmented by attack drones aimed at law enforcement trying to control the unrest?  Our police aren't equipped or trained to deal with such weapons, and it's hard to see how civilian law enforcement could be so equipped without transgressing a number of constitutional rights and issues.  Nevertheless, I'd say it's increasingly likely that they will face such dangers.  It's in the cartels' best interests to disrupt law enforcement, for different reasons, but towards the same end - making parts of the country ungovernable, so they can take advantage of that for criminal rather than political advantage.

Those of us who regard personal preparedness and willingness to resist crime and violence have some hard thinking to do here.  We don't (generally) have access to such technology;  but without it, we'll be several plays behind the game, and much more vulnerable.  That applies particularly to larger cities within which the users of such drones will find it easier to conceal themselves and operate untraceably.

Matt Bracken has written extensively on the growing danger of drone warfare within the USA.  I highly recommend that you read his article on the subject, complete with many photographs.  I think all of us will do well to consider how this danger may affect us, in our own regions and circumstances, and plan accordingly.

Peter

The Federal takeover of Washington D.C. law enforcement

 

A number of interesting perspectives have emerged on President Trump's takeover of the Washington D.C. police department and other law enforcement functions.

Quoth The Raven points out a very basic and inescapable logic behind this step.

For too long, the capital of the United States—the city that houses the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court—has looked less like the shining beacon of democracy and more like a live-action hellscape from a horror movie. Tourists and school trips meandering through downtown D.C. to learn about the history of our great nation are confronted with makeshift shantytowns, hypodermic needles and smells worse than J.B. Pritzker’s bathroom the morning after a long night at Big Ed’s Bar-B-Que.

. . .

When world leaders, diplomats, and tourists step off the plane, they’re not just visiting a city; they’re seeing America’s face.

And if that face is covered in human feces a block from the White House, guess what—they’re not going to be thinking “land of the free,” they’re going to be thinking “third-world cosplay”.

. . .

And this is where Trump’s move makes perfect sense ... There’s nothing shallow about caring how your country looks. It’s not “cosmetic,” it’s called “national pride.” When visitors—whether foreign dignitaries or American schoolkids—arrive in Washington, what they see should tell them we are a capable, functioning nation that respects itself.

. . .

Right now, what they see too often screams “we’ve given up.” And nothing broadcasts “we’ve lost control” like a tent city and drug-addled homeless within selfie range of the White House ... sometimes the fastest way to fix a broken system is to start by sweeping the front porch—especially when the front porch happens to be the front porch of America.

There's more at the link.

I entirely agree.  In fact, I'd apply the same logic to any and every US city and town.  Do we want the places where we live, where we choose to associate with others, to look like Third World hellholes?  If we don't, let's clean them up before that gets any worse.  As far as I know, there's no constitutional right to crap on the sidewalk or inject yourself with illegal narcotics on streets where people live, work and shop.

Jeff Childers adds that this may be the start of cleaning up the notoriously corrupt and ineffective Washington Police Department.

During January 6th, the Metro Police Department outed itself as a sold-out, partisan political actor deeply aligned with Democrats and hostile to Americans who share different beliefs. Now that Pam Bondi has assumed control of MPD, get this, she has hire/fire authority ... my guess (and I’m just guessing) is that we’re about to see a DOGE-style, anti-DEI deconstruction of DC’s entire police department. I think that could be what this is really all about. The dots are right there.

. . .

But if the real plan is to strip MPD down to the studs — purge leadership, dismantle DEI programs, root out anyone they think is politically hostile, and rebuild the force in the Trump-Bondi image — then all those federal bodies aren’t temporary help, they’re a replacement backbone. They’ll keep the city covered while the locals get benched, investigated, or walked out.

. . .

If I’m right, if that is the play, the public story is “crime crackdown,” but the operational reality is federal receivership with a remodel crew already on site. Brilliant.

But I could be wrong. Very wrong. There could be a lot more to this move. A much bigger dot ... What if —and I am just wondering here— what if the Administration is securing DC before it makes a really controversial move? Like arresting someone near the top of the political food chain?

Suppose you were planning something like that, and you wanted to preclude the otherwise inevitable violent protests in the Nation’s Capital. What better way to prepare than in advance by loading up DC with military, national guard, FBI, and tons of other resources under direct federal control, that might otherwise seem like overkill to handle a few mobs of unruly teenage gangsters?

Again, more at the link.

Finally, several commenters have pointed out that Washington D.C. isn't a state, and isn't under a state's constitutional authority.  It's Federal land.  Furthermore, it has its own unique military reserve unit, the District of Columbia National Guard, which operates under a unique legal framework:

Normally, U.S. federal law specifically charges the U.S. National Guard with dual federal and state missions.[citation needed] As a federal district, the District of Columbia has a mayor but no governor, and federal law makes the president the commander-in-chief.

Supervision and control of D.C. National Guard was delegated by the president to the defense secretary pursuant to Executive Order 10030, 26 January 1949 with authority to designate National Military Establishment officials to administer affairs of the D.C. National Guard. The Army secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the ground component, and the Air Force secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the air component.

The D.C. National Guard is the only U.S. military force empowered to carry out federal functions in a state or, in this case, a district. Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law when local law enforcement officials can no longer maintain civil control. The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the president.

That means the President and the Secretary of Defense can legally use military forces to augment federal law enforcement resources in restoring law and order in Washington D.C.  The restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act do not apply.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Peter

I've heard of a stool pigeon, but a stool parrot???

 

As I'm sure most readers know, the term "stool pigeon" is used to refer to an informant who provides police with information about criminals.  I've no idea how it came to exist;  I can't imagine most pigeons I've seen sitting still on a stool where someone might sit on them!

Be that as it may, a parrot turns out to be the stool pigeon in a British case.

A loud-mouthed parrot snitched on his owner by squawking drug-dealing slang in video footage found by cops — leading to a massive crack and heroin bust in England, police said.

“Two for 25, two for 25!” the feathered rat chirped in the footage, according to cops, who said it was code for the price of dope.

A drug ring of 15 people in Blackpool was taken down by the tiny yellow bird — who was also seen in videos playing with drug money — after police seized gang leader Adam Garnett’s cellphones, according to the Lancashire Constabulary.

Cellphone footage led them to the home of Garnett’s girlfriend and number two, Shannon Hilton, where her phone featured videos that amounted to the parrot squealing.

Videos allegedly show Hilton teaching her less-than-cagey critter to say “two for 25” — apparent payment for bags of the dope — “in front of a child” and “the parrot playing with money, which was gained through their illegal activities,” police said.

There's more at the link, including a video clip showing the bird at its informative best.

Another British slang term is to "do bird", meaning to serve a prison sentence.  In this case, once the courts have had their say, that may be a rather more appropriate term than usual for the crooks concerned!  On the other hand, I hope the police will find a new (and safer) home for the parrot.  Its former owner(s) are unlikely to be feeling charitable towards it . . .  What's a witness protection program for birds called, anyway?  A bird sanctuary?

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,125

 

Some doofi and their doofidities are so weird, so flatly daft, that it's hard to believe they actually happened.  Today's is one example.  See this video clip on X of a cop who was stopped by two ladies (?) complaining that the illegal drugs they were illegally trying to sell had been stolen by someone else.

What's a poor cop to do???

Verily, the mind doth boggle . . .

Peter

Is left-wing terrorism to be the "new normal"?

 

John Farnam thinks so.

Overshadowed by the tragic flooding in TX, there was an well-funded, violent attack, a “planned ambush,” by at least ten heavily-armed leftist terrorists on Federal Officers at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, TX on Friday, 4 July 25.  At least one officer was injured by gunfire.

This incident began with vandalism, graffiti, and fireworks.  It was all clearly intended to draw Federal Officers outside and into a deadly ambush.

Terrorists used M4 rifles (with “high-capacity” magazines), were equipped with body-armor, radios, and other military equipment, and the selection of a national holiday to stage this attack was no accident.

There was a simultaneous, separate shooting-attack on Federal Officers at the  Border Patrol Facility in McAllen, TX.  At least one armed terrorist was fatally shot by officers during that armed assault.

As expected, no Democrat politician has publically condemned these shooting attacks on our Federal LEOs.  In fact, Democrats are self-righteously calling our courageous ICE Officers “terrorists.”

. . .

In 2020, these same leftist terrorists, openly incited by Democrat politicians, destroyed historic statues and burned large swaths of business districts (in an effort to punish “hated capitalists”).

In 2024/25, these same terrorists violently attacked Jewish students and trashed college campuses, all with the approval of leftist-supporting college administrators, who simultaneously exclude Christians and Jews from being hired (in the name of “DEI”)

Today, these same leftist terrorists, now using “assault weapons,” are openly shooting at our police, all as their supporters (which includes most Democrat politicians) remain silent, or in some cases cheer them on!

This all precisely fits the Leninist pattern for the violent seizure of power, as the DNC’s current spokesman, Zohran Mamdani, so candidly articulates.

Nothing is beneath them!

Why should any of us be surprised?

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I can't disagree with Mr. Farnam.  I fear we're going to be sending out patrol cars in pairs, at least, in our more dangerous cities, and probably in larger groups where hot-button issues such as illegal migration or other left-wing shibboleths are concerned.  Where I live, this hasn't been a problem (yet), but I understand from talking to a couple of cop friends in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Houston that they're already preparing for that.  Unfortunately, their city governments are more inclined to pander to the extremists than crack down on them - which means that ordinary citizens are probably going to have to shoulder more of the burden of keeping their neighborhoods crime-free and regressive (as opposed to progressive, you understand).

Fair warning.  Take a close look at the political and social environment in and around the area where you live, and plan accordingly.

Peter

Training was lacking, it seems...

 

Two (apparently rookie) Chicago cops tried to arrest a fleeing felon (apparently also a rookie).

Looks like the pole was the only competent one there, stopping the bad guy when he ran headlong into it.  Certainly, it was more effective than anyone's (allegedly) aimed gunfire!

Go read the comments about the video on YouTube.  Some of them are hysterical.

(Oh - and someone please get those cops some remedial firearms training.  They desperately need it!)

Peter

Maybe some police NEED to be defunded...

 

Regular readers will know that I've always been opposed to calls to "Defund The Police" from the radical Left.  I remain opposed to them, provided that the police are doing their job of upholding the law and stopping those who break it.

Then, there are police like this in Minnesota . . .

Why, precisely, are ratepayers there continuing to fund police who either can't or won't do their job?  Why are they paying for police who do not "protect and serve", who do not ensure the safety of the public against wrongdoers and criminals?

Even worse, if citizens defend themselves against such lawbreakers, the police will most likely arrest them for "taking the law into their own hands".  If the law is not in the hands of the police, then in whose hands is it?

This is a travesty in so many dimensions I can't think of them all.  I'm very glad to live in a state where the police are much more likely to stop such conduct, and bring the smackdown to those who think they can get away with it.  Sure, there are a few liberal districts around, but the average Texan is much more motivated to ensure the safety of his or her own community, whether or not the police assist.

Meanwhile, ratepayers in Minnesota might want to consider whether their police forces are worth funding . . .

Peter

As if you needed reminding - your safety cannot be left in police hands

 

Yesterday saw this report from Miami, Florida.

The security footage shows a gang of angry bicyclists going berserk — beating on the motorist, breaking his windshield, jumping on and stomping on his car’s roof and hood, and using a bike to punctuate the beatdown.

Meanwhile, a Miami Police officer sat in her car with a front-row seat to the mayhem.

There's more at the link, including the video.  Click over there to watch it.

Yes, there are conscientious officers out there who will do their best to help any member of the public who needs it . . . and then there are those like the officer in the video, who just sat there and watched an assault going on right in front of her and did nothing about it.

Yes, there are police departments that will do their best to respond quickly to calls for assistance . . . and then there are those that are so short-staffed and politically hamstrung (thanks to their city governments) that they take far too long to reach the scene after a call to 911.  In some large cities, the average response time to a 911 call is now 12-15 minutes, sometimes even longer.  In that time, an attacker (or multiple attackers) can do an awful lot of damage - assault, rape, kidnapping, murder, and more - and then get clean away, with good odds of never being convicted of their crimes.  Look up the average 911 response times in your own location (and if you can't find them, ask yourself why not - is it because the police and/or city government find them embarrassing?).

Friends, as if you needed reminding:  your safety and security are primarily your own responsibility.  Train for that, prepare for that, equip yourself for that.  If you don't, you're nothing more than a victim in waiting.

What's more, tell your family and friends to do the same.  If they quibble, show them the video linked above, and refer them to crime videos on social media (there are untold thousands of them out there).

No matter where we live in America today, we are within reach of criminals who want what we've got.  They travel to find it, too.  We had a situation a few weeks ago in our nearby big city where criminals from the DFW metroplex, a couple of hours away, drove up to raid gun stores.  Thanks to their ineptness they set off the alarm at the first and had to flee, but tried again at another store a couple of miles away.  The cops caught them there.  They said they'd come up to our part of the world because security here wasn't as tight as in the "big city", and they figured they could "score" more easily.

Finally, as I've said many times before, if you live in a larger city, try to find a way to leave it.  Now.  Don't delay, because things are going to get worse, particularly with extremist political violence increasing almost daily.  If you stay put, understand the risks involved in doing so, and protect yourself against them as best you can.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Go read Lawdog's advice on training, legal representation, etc.  I endorse every word.

Heads up, owners of Sig P320 pistols...

 

... take heed of this development in Washington state.

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission has prohibited recruits from training with a popular semiautomatic handgun and has banned the pistol from the commission’s campuses after reports the gun could fire without someone pulling the trigger.

In an order issued Feb. 24, commission Executive Director Monica Alexander made a permanent prohibition of the Sig Sauer P320, one of the most popular handguns on the market, a version of which is used by the U.S. military.

Alexander had temporarily banned anyone from carrying and training with the firearm after an Oct. 9 incident, in which a recruit in a Basic Law Enforcement Academy class in Spokane reported his Sig Sauer “self-discharged” as he drew it to fire on targets at the police range. The round struck the ground behind the recruit and fragmented, striking and injuring an instructor and another recruit.

The recruit insisted his trigger finger was “indexed” — pointed alongside the frame of the handgun, outside of the trigger guard — when he drew the weapon. A firearms instructor confirmed the incident, stating he was watching the recruit’s hand and that the “weapon immediately fired while he was drawing the weapon” while his finger was not on the trigger.

. . .

The work group uncovered a number of lawsuits and video of incidents involving the Sig Sauer P320 firing while in a holster, including 2022 body-camera video of an officer in Milwaukee who was wounded when his partner’s firearm discharged in its holster.

Another body-camera video shows a 2023 incident in Montville, N.J., where an officer’s holstered sidearm goes off in the lobby of the police station.

There also have been a number of lawsuits filed against Sig Sauer over unintended discharges of the P320, including one settled in Tacoma in 2023 after a man suffered a serious leg wound when his gun discharged while he was holstering it. The details of the settlement were not immediately available.

There's more at the link.

There's no word on whether the prohibition also applies to the Sig-Sauer M17 and M18, military versions of the SiG P320.  However, I'd assume the risk is the same - they're mechanically identical internally, as far as I know - so I'd be careful with the military pistols too.

I've never fired a Sig P320, so I can't comment from personal experience.  I know it's become very popular in certain circles, with a number of top competition shooters using it.  This troubling development in Washington state may change that.

Peter

Africa strikes again...

 

One has to laugh at reports like this.

A drunken police officer in Zambia freed 13 suspects from custody so that they could go and celebrate the new year, officials say.

Detective inspector Titus Phiri was arrested after releasing the suspects from Leonard Cheelo police station in the capital, Lusaka, before running away himself.

The 13 detainees were accused of crimes such as assault, robbery and burglary.

They are all currently on the run and a manhunt has been launched to find them.

There's more at the link.

Officer Friendly really was friendly to them . . . and probably Officer Hungover within a few hours, particularly once his superiors noticed what he'd done.  I suspect those he released are a long way from Lusaka by now, and have no intention of going back!

Peter

Unspeakable tragedy - but it's not the first time

 

News of a police shooting in Missouri has shocked many readers.

Chilling body camera footage captures a Missouri mom holding her baby as she lunges with a huge kitchen knife at cops who then shoot them both dead.

The newly released footage shows officers — called to a reported family assault — initially talking calmly to mom Maria Pike, 34, as she holds her 2-month-old daughter Destinii Hope while standing inside a closet at her home in Independence.

Eleven minutes into the footage, Pike can be seen suddenly grabbing a large knife from a bedside table and lunging toward an officer.

There's more at the link, including video footage.

I'm sure the police officers are just as traumatized by what happened as the deceased lady's husband.  Sadly, they had no time to think, no time to plan - particularly for a situation like that.  They could only react, and defend their own lives.

It's not the first time I've come across something like that.  I've mentioned before on this blog an incident in South Africa, one where I was an eye-witness.

I was present when a vehicle-mounted patrol was passing through a very volatile area.  A woman rushed out from behind a hut, with a baby strapped to her chest in the typical African manner.  She charged the lead vehicle, holding a Molotov cocktail in either hand, their fuses lit.  The soldiers on the vehicle had a very simple binary choice.  Shoot her - which meant snap-shooting, probably through the baby on her chest, because there was no time to take careful aim and avoid it - or be immolated when the gasoline bombs exploded inside the load bed of the patrol vehicle.  You can imagine their feelings . . . but they were left with no other options.  She, and her baby, died.  Whose fault was that baby's death?  Not the soldiers', I would argue.

Again, more at the link.

What causes a mother to "snap" like that?  How can she even think of endangering her own child in order to attack others?  I don't know . . . for that matter, I don't suppose anyone knows.  For the deceased mother's sake, I can only hope that there was some sort of mental illness or aberration involved - because I can't imagine any mother making a sane, rational choice to act like that.  It's beyond comprehension.

Say a prayer, if you'll be so kind, for the souls of that mother and her child - and for the sanity of her husband, who had to watch that happen.  I don't know if he'll ever be the same man again.  Also, of course, pray for the officers involved, who have to be carrying all sorts of emotional guilt, even though they must know intellectually that she left them with no choice.  Believe me when I say that, even if one hasn't pulled a trigger, the emotional guilt of such an experience takes decades to subside, and is never completely forgotten.

Peter